Originally Posted by havasu
I had the same thought years ago, and carried my Sig Sauer P 220, .45 ACP for several years. Whem we completed a study on weaponry, we discovered the .45, with the limited mag capacity of 7 rounds, was a clear detriment. The 9MM, although held 15 rounds, just didn't have the stopping power needed to put someone down quickly.
We found a happy medium was a .40 cal. The FPS is similar to the .45, had the stopping power of the .45, but contained the much needed 15 rounds in the magazine. From that point forward, it has been my Glock 22.
I know you've already heard this before but thought I'd mention it any way. I'm sure you are aware that the best weapon is the one which you practice with often, with lots of repetition.
Your planning to take on the entire hells angels at once.
In most cases you need 1 or 2 rounds, so 7 should be far more than needed.
I have never shot and killed a human, but hunt a lot.
Even a large moose or bear will go down with just 1 shot about 99.9% of the time.
While my main hunting rifle can carry 4 if 1 is chambered, I have yet to need them all. Every hunt, they have gone down with just 1 shot fired.
Besides a human shot, even if still alive is likely no longer a threat.
Using myself for example, I doubt if I was even just shot in the leg, that i am now capable of doing much except screaming in pain.
And if they are armed, and still a threat to shoot you, surely #2 is going to stop them.
I wonder why some people that teach about firearms, teach quantity over quality. I usually hunt with others, so for example I am going to shoot a moose. Two buddies may also take aim, just in case it does not go down.
But not in my 25 years hunting has a friend ever needed to squeeze a round off as my backup. And only once did I ever need to backup a friend. He was doing a long shot, down a steep hill and just gut shot it.
As it was about to run, my shot hit it in the neck and it went down in about 10 to 15 feet, and only took that long since it was already moving.